And vice versa. I've seen an overwhelmingly large amount of people on this forum ignore a game simply because it doesn't have a story mode. That's ridiculous. Even when games do incorporate a story mode to try and appease people who ignorantly ignore fantastic, well-designed games, they still get chewed out (I.e. Titanfall). We've seen some of the best games recently, multiplayer only, getting shat on simply for not wasting resources on a story that most people will play once. In some of the more recent Call of Dutys, less than 5% of the games population [i]completed[/i] the campaign. It's obvious that the people who enjoy forcing developers to create pointless stories are the minority, yet they still have the audacity to trash talk a game. What's worse, major reviewers have begun to incorporate this idea. Why should a multiplayer only game try to be something it's not? This affects developers drastically. Developers already don't take many risks in creating new IPs, simply because of the backlash at what is different. But when they can't even make the type of game they want to, and are forced to shoehorn a version they never intended, it makes them want to even less. Some of the most creative games in recent years have been trashed simply for this, how does this make other developers feel? They certainly don't want to follow suit and see their fanbase dissipate. Edit: It appears people are simply complaining about content for price. An argument I've always found borderline idiotic, but none the less, what [b]is[/b] enough content for a multiplayer only game? 20+ maps that you'll likely never play? 40+ guns that'll ensure nothing is ever balanced? 20+ gamemodes which will have such an uneven distribution of players that half are empty? I know this concept will likely go way over some people's heads (most couldn't understand the point of this thread), but there is such a thing as "pointless content".